55 replies to this topic

[SamsungNinja]

For all mechs, of all chassis types, in all weight classes.

It's not fun getting cored out in a heavy or assault in a couple of hits by some guy boating a pair of AC/20s. Furthermore, and this happens much more often, I will find that I barely have any damage elsewhere on my mech, but my center torso is flashing red. Now, I do my best to torso turn and mitigate damage, but this becomes especially problematic in mechs without the ability to toggle off arm lock, like the Jager. In order to deal damage in my JM6-DD, I have to face the opponent.

I make this post, not to QQ, but to suggest, for the good of gameplay, that CT armor in all mechs be increased by a significant percentage. For me, the game is the most fun when I'm dismantling an enemy. I don't get the same sense of morbid satisfaction from coring a Jenner as I do from legging it, or from drilling the CT of a Cataphract as I do from blowing off one of its arms.

Easy coring turns this game from a thinking person's shooter into a speed-kill fest, and being able to ignore your opponents' armaments and focus on the chest plate really siphons the fun out of the game.

Even in death, it's more fun to have died lame and armless than to just get drilled out in 3 shots. With the popularity of Gauss, ACs, and PPCs, I think a beefier sternum is in order.

For context, my thoughts were 30-50% increase in CT armor for all mechs.

To quote my favorite game of all time:

"Cut off their limbs..."

Edited by SamsungNinja, 13 August 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[Colby Boucher]

Agreed.

[Wolfways]

Been saying this for a long time.

[MrZakalwe]

As long as it's only slight it would be good.

If it's too much it would remove XL engines from play.

[Kaldor]

I dont think that need more armor per say, but switching to a total point system that you can allocate across your mech, with a max per location of 20% greater than stock would be fine with me.

Example:
Atlas has 614 points of armor to distribute
Atlas has 124 points of armor CT
Give the Atlas the potential to run 149 points of armor on their CT which is +20%
Now if they choose to run more CT armor then they have to take armor from another spot to strengthen another area.

Trade offs are good.

[Tombstoner]

Lights 0
mediums +50%
heavy +100%
assault +150%

This is not how i would really adjust armor. That would take studying the relationship between mech size and speed to see how easy/hard it is to hit and atlas vs. a spider. Then adjust protection (armor) values to approximate evasion (hard to hit).

Justification is the internal structure is designed for load bearing in the case of the atlas and speed/ long legs for lighter mechs. design needs lead to better armor coverage: speed vs. armor trade off.

Armor needs to be increased over all mechs because fire rates where increased 250% but armor was only 200%. but this is a subjective point influenced buy how long mechs should live. its a qualitative measurement not quantitative.

[SamsungNinja]

MrZakalwe, on 13 August 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

As long as it's only slight it would be good.

If it's too much it would remove XL engines from play.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but, if the buff was significant, it may relegate them to a support role.

I'm not convinced that's necessarily a negative. If one opts to trade survivability for firepower, then they don't really need to be/shouldn't be 'tanky.'

[Zyllos]

Ya, the current available allocation is extremely out of proportion when you the damaging system allows for aiming.

The current system is based around the idea that damage is 100% random. We are using a system where damage is being applied where we aim.

That is why you see only specific locations taken out instead of damage being spread across many locations.

But, if we allow for higher distribution of armor to locations (but the maximum value stays the same), I forsee more legging to begin happening. I also forsee arm weapons being worthless because if you remove armor from legs/torso to apply to arms, your torsos and legs will be quickly taken out. But if you remove armor from arms, then any weapons on those locations are just going to be taken out in no time due to pin point convergence.

This is why I would hope instead of allowing for a new distribution of armor points, I would fix pin point convergence first.

[SamsungNinja]

Tombstoner, on 13 August 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Lights 0
mediums +50%
heavy +100%
assault +150%

This is not how i would really adjust armor. That would take studying the relationship between mech size and speed to see how easy/hard it is to hit and atlas vs. a spider. Then adjust protection (armor) values to approximate evasion (hard to hit).

Justification is the internal structure is designed for load bearing in the case of the atlas and speed/ long legs for lighter mechs. design needs lead to better armor coverage: speed vs. armor trade off.

Armor needs to be increased over all mechs because fire rates where increased 250% but armor was only 200%. but this is a subjective point influenced buy how long mechs should live. its a qualitative measurement not quantitative.

I feel the armor, for the most part, is pretty well distributed as it is now, except for the CT values. While I appreciate your breakdown based on role, the problem isn't spiders being too tanky vs. other weight classes, but rather than all weight classes suffer from being overly easy to core vs the rest of their components.

If it's only 10-20% harder to drill the CT of any given mech (like it is now), why wouldn't I just go for the chest rather than take the time to pick them apart? This is what I see people doing, and this is what I feel needs to be altered. It's a change to promote a shift in player choices, not to revamp the armor allocation of weight classes.

[MrZakalwe]

SamsungNinja, on 13 August 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but, if the buff was significant, it may relegate them to a support role.

I'm not convinced that's necessarily a negative. If one opts to trade survivability for firepower, then they don't really need to be/shouldn't be 'tanky.'

They aren't tanky at the moment, this would make them even more vulnerable. I rarely die without losing at least one side torso (Disclaimer: unless I'm piloting a walking CT mech like the Awesome or Kintaro and those guys wont be saved by this change) and as my Jager I nearly always die to side torso destruction.

Edited by MrZakalwe, 13 August 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[SamsungNinja]

MrZakalwe, on 13 August 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

They aren't tanky at the moment, this would make them even more vulnerable.

I agree, somewhat. But I've seen more than a couple K2's with LBXs getting in the middle of the action. They're tankier (can I make that word up?) than you might give them credit for. That being said, the only mechs I roll an XL in are lights and medium support. Anything that needs to take a hit needs all the help it can get.

I get cored enough as it is, I don't like the idea of having my engine in my armpits.

[DaZur]

What'da say we just dispense with all those silly hitboxes and just have a nice health bar eh?

​This is just silly...

If you have less than 40 points of armor on your CT and you waddle up to a Mech kitted with a pair of 20s, yes... you're dead. That's how it works in this game...

Either relocate your front/rear armor, don't tie up under 500m with a pilot running 20 or gt a bigger mech...

Edited by DaZur, 13 August 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

As one of those people that owns the centre torso mech the Kintaro, I have to disagree.

While I'm sure it wasn't just this twin Ac20 mech firing at you, which is a big big heat gain now it would take three volleys to strip the armour off an atlas which suggests either this person is a consistantly good shot or you didn't move about much...

Its extremely hard to have an opinion, without a way of watching how you play to either validate, your idea, or just put it aside as a person who stood still and got cored.

[SamsungNinja]

DaZur, on 13 August 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

What'da say we just dispense with all those silly hitboxes and just have a nice health bar eh?

​This is just silly...

If you have less than 40 points of armor on or CT and you waddle up to a Mech kitted with a pair of 20s, yes... you're dead. That's how it works in this game...

Either relocate your front/rear armor, don't tie up under 500m with an pilot running 20 or gt a bigger mech...

I was waiting for someone to come in and play captain obvious. I put as much armor on my CT as possible. Even in my 72 front armor JM6-DD, I can get cored in seconds.

[Tombstoner]

SamsungNinja, on 13 August 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I feel the armor, for the most part, is pretty well distributed as it is now, except for the CT values. While I appreciate your breakdown based on role, the problem isn't spiders being too tanky vs. other weight classes, but rather than all weight classes suffer from being overly easy to core vs the rest of their components.

If it's only 10-20% harder to drill the CT of any given mech (like it is now), why wouldn't I just go for the chest rather than take the time to pick them apart? This is what I see people doing, and this is what I feel needs to be altered. It's a change to promote a shift in player choices, not to revamp the armor allocation of weight classes.

o i agree with you but there are two ways of setting armor values.. the correct way and PGI's.... yes a CT only buff is warranted and has been since closed beta. but the powers that be dont agree.

The most severe change from TT to MWO involved player targeting. that means lots and lots of work figuring out armor vs evasion for size and speed in order to set survivability rates to be = for a light vs. assault 1-1. but PGI just ported TT stats. This to me is a WTF moment in game design.

its not going to be fixed so yea the CT needs to be buffed and let mechs be turned into zombies.

Edited by Tombstoner, 13 August 2013 - 05:44 AM.

[MrZakalwe]

I would approve of a small buff to CT armour- at the moment you are either aiming for the CT or doing it wrong.

[SamsungNinja]

Cathy, on 13 August 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

As one of those people that owns the centre torso mech the Kintaro, I have to disagree.

While I'm sure it wasn't just this twin Ac20 mech firing at you, which is a big big heat gain now it would take three volleys to strip the armour off an atlas which suggests either this person is a consistantly good shot or you didn't move about much...

Its extremely hard to have an opinion, without a way of watching how you play to either validate, your idea, or just put it aside as a person who stood still and got cored.

It was Jager vs. Jager. He caught me in the centre trench of Canyon while I was positioning for a flank. I had very little damage done to me at all, and in two volleys he tore through 72 (minus the little I'd taken) CT armor and my 2x PPC, 6x MG Jager, which I call "Dismemberment," barely got the armor off his left arm before he cored me.

As far as shots go... It's way easier to hit the much larger CT than it is an arm. Now, that's just an example of a parcticular edge case that will make you go WTF, but the problem is more general than one random Jager boating AC/20s. I've been paying attention to my deaths this week, and the majority have been scattered damage with a majority of deaths being cored.

I find myself yelling "Aww ****, I just got cored" on TS far more than I'm saying "crap guys, I just got gimped."

In any mech that I can torso twist in, I do, but for my little amputee-lookin' Jager (or my Quasimodo Hunchie), that's not an option while I'm firing. That being said, I do turn away when not engaging a target.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 13 August 2013 - 05:54 AM.

[Zarlaren]

I do agree armor needs to be tougher but I think what needs to be tougher is internal structure once armor is gone all it takes is 1 shot and your dead it needs to be alot tougher overall. Also I think there should be a health on the engine itself not just center torso health but I would like to see internal structure not be so squishy once armor fails.

Edited by Zarla, 13 August 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[SamsungNinja]

Zarla, on 13 August 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

I do agree armor needs to be tougher but I think what needs to be tougher is internal structure once armor is gone is is 1 shot and your dead it needs to be alot tougher overall. Also I think there should be a health on the engine itself.

Now this could be an alternate solution to the problem. It would also breathe some life into the role viability of XL engines.

[DaZur]

SamsungNinja, on 13 August 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

I was waiting for someone to come in and play captain obvious. I put as much armor on my CT as possible. Even in my 72 front armor JM6-DD, I can get cored in seconds.

Then I hate to break it to you... you're doing something wrong...

With a the cycle-time that 20s have for you to stand around and let them drop a second pair into you, you are trying to brawl with the wrong mech...

It's like boxing... If you can't take roundhouses to your noggin, do you think it wise to try and slug it out with your opponent?

It boils down to tactical information... Target the mech, once you see they are sporting 20s you should never get inside of 250m.. ideally around 500 is a unwritten rule. If you step into his optimum range for the 20s and you try to toe it out... you'll be dead.

I don't care if you put 100 points of armour in your CT... if you brawl-up with a mech running 20's you'll lose. (Unless your running an equivalent build... then it's a simple battle of attrition)

I'm not trying to be a "richard" but come on... There's a level of tactical application that is requisite while playing MW:O and running in all "Leroy Jenkins" and doing the death circle with a mech you're not equipped to do so is not a fault of the game...

Edited by DaZur, 13 August 2013 - 06:10 AM.